Controlling Prison Costs

* The Times missed the point in its editorial, “Imprisoned by Oversimplification” (June 12), which dismissed my legislation to control soaring prison costs as “emblematic of the Legislature’s continuing inability to confront the hard choices that inevitably result from facile political solutions like the ‘three strikes’ law.”

Because The Times doesn’t like “three strikes,” it belittles my legislation to control the cost of implementing the new law. That’s a considerable leap of logic. In fact, the failure to try to control prison costs would signal inability or unwillingness to make hard choices. We must explore new ways to stop prison costs from bankrupting the state and wrecking our schools and universities.

SB 760, which would allow counties to hold short-term, nonviolent prisoners--and get paid for it by the state--is a good start. It could save the state $2 billion in prison construction costs by reducing the need for up to six new prisons. Because counties can house prisoners more cheaply than the state, taxpayers would save again in the form of reduced operating costs.

Strapped counties with empty jails because they cannot afford to staff them would also benefit. SB 760 would provide a stable revenue source of $650 million a year for counties to operate their jails and fund new crime prevention efforts.

Whether The Times likes it or not, “three strikes” is the law of the land. Members of the Legislature who care about the tax burden, about education, about help for the elderly, blind and disabled have an obligation to find new ways to control prison costs. The Senate unanimously agreed. The Assembly and governor, and The Times, should follow suit.

BILL LOCKYER

President Pro Tempore

State Senate, D-Hayward